Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
Much work to do to close the gap on women’s pay
|
Why is there still such a pay gap between men and women in full-time paid work? This working week is still catch-up time for women on average weekly ordinary-time earnings. Until Tuesday September 1 they will earn less than men did to last June 30. So a coalition of women’s groups is asking for action to close the pay gap. The gender gap was reduced by 19% between 1972-79 (up to 80%), after the male minimum wage was abolished and equal pay for work of equal value approved. It has been up to 86% and now it’s back to 82.5%. So why is this happening, considering women are now better educated, more likely to be in paid work and there are measures in place supposedly to deal with prejudice? The figures from various industries are interesting and counter the idea that most of the gap is just that women work fewer hours and years. Even when women are in the same industries as men, they earn less, but ABS figures show the gap is biggest in the male-dominated areas, e.g.
In 2008, the pay gap between men and women in finance grew from 24% to 28%, which raises an interesting question about the effects of global financial crisis and who has benefited, after maybe contributing to its causation? And it’s not the arrival of family responsibilities as new graduates often show clear gender differences, even in the same professional areas, e.g. law and medicine. There is evidence that 40 years after the first decision started the process of equal pay for work of equal value, we are still not there. The facts are that the cultures of the workplace, community and related attitudes of men and women have not shifted as dramatically as the public rhetoric suggests. We still have a workplace model that survives almost unchanged since the industrial revolution when men first moved out of the home and into the workplace. This became the public sphere and became more important and regulated than what was left outside. Workplace reform shortened official hours (but they’ve gone up unofficially), emphasised the value of hours worked (the more the better) and assumed the presentism (being there) was an unquestioned good, even when technology offered wider options. The private sphere and its needs were excluded except for some idea of family wages, now defunct. Changes of assumptions about good workers, good bosses, hours and place based locations shifted marginally and women who joined were expected to “fit in” with some minor adjustments. So it is not surprising we are still under-paid for similar jobs. There are bits that could be fixed by using existing legal and educations processes that can be used to alleviate the differences. Signals of continued discrimination include:
Data for May showed full-time ordinary time earnings rose by 6.5% for males and 5.2% for females, showing how women’s pay is going backwards. So women’s groups are asking women to wear red to work next Tuesday to illustrate their deficit and give their boss a red rose to remind him we too have thorns, if this gap does not decrease. |
|
|
15 Comments
Eva, I think your article pretty much sums it up - but how do we change these attitudes? We (allegedly) have equality, equal pay etc etc, but still these problems persist. Its not our attitudes that have to change, its mens - are you listening you chaps?
I thought that statistically speaking men and women get paid the same amount of money when they enter full time work. Why doesn’t anyone take into account the fact that a lot of women take time out from working for years to raise a family so when they go back to work they have less experience than their male counterparts which equates to them not rising as high and getting paid better. Also isn’t it true that an unmarried woman earns more money than an unmarried man?
Eva,
Whilst I support equal pay for equal work, I think you could benefit from re - examining this issue analytically, without your preconceived notions that the Great Oppressor (men) is trying to keep women in their place.
To address some of the issues that you raise and give you food for thought, in order to balance your somewhat one - sided view of this issue,
To address your comments about the gender gaps in selected industries, I can only speak about one, which is mining. You state, and I’m sure you’re correct, that full time female employees in mining earn an average of 25 % less than full time male employees. This in itself means nothing.
Yes, nothing.
If you were to break it down by job description so that we could see how many of those full time male and female employees work in what positions, that would be an improvement. It would still be inadequate and misleading.
When you can demonstrate by publishing detailed statistics, that female employees in a given specific discipline (let’s say, Geologist. Or better yet, let’s say, air leg driller. Or Jumbo Drill Rig Operator.) with EQUIVALENT QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE and ABILITY, are payed less than their male counterparts, in jobs which are very similar in requirements, seniority and responsibility, within the same organisation, in the same geographical area and with the same working conditions, THEN you will have an argument which means something.
I have been 15 years in mining, and I can tell you a few things anecdotally.
1. The highest paid positions are those in upper management. These are generally occupied by men, disproportionately so even given that mining is a male dominated profession. I believe this is because men are generally more competitive and ambitious. These are characteristics which are rewarded by the capitalist system because they result in outcomes which produce greater returns for the shareholder. I’m not saying that, holistically speaking, the (masculine dominated) characteristics such as ambition, ruthlessness, competitiveness etc. are in any way better or more intrinsically valuable than the (feminine dominated) characteristics of nurturing, caring, cooperation and consideration. Far from it. But the fact is that the economic and business model under which we operate, rewards masculine traits. It is NOT some great big conspiracy to pay women less, they just are generally less well equipped to rise to senior positions under this system due to their differing skill sets. Note, this is not even taking into consideration the perfectly valid point made by JACKS (above) that many women choose to “interrupt” or terminate a career to take time out to raise a family. Again, I am not disparaging this choice: my own wife made this decision and I value her equal contribution to our family’s wellbeing, very highly. But you can’t take 10 years or so out of your career (for any reason) and then complain that you haven’t risen as far as your contemporaries who have been developing their professional skills and experience during that 10 years. These are the sacrifices we make.
2. The next highest paid positions in mining are the dangerous and low skilled jobs underground. Not the environmental coordinator. Not the Human Resources Coordinator. Not the Receptionist. (You can cry stereotype all you want. I work in the industry. I’ve worked at dozens of mine sites. The bulk of women in the industry work in administrative positions.) It is the Jumbo operators, drillers, air leg drillers, and bogger operators who make the really big bucks. Why? Their jobs are dangerous, hot, uncomfortable, dirty, repetitive, manually strenuous and hard on your body. This makes it hard to get people to do these jobs. This means you have to pay them lots to do it. That’s supply and demand. Most women don’t want to do these jobs because they value their safety, health, comfort, and rewarding work environment, more than men do. This means there are lots of women (and men, I might add) who are willing to work in an office on a minesite, and not very many who are willing to do the dirty dangerous hard slog underground. Supply and demand. That’s why the big bucks go to the blokes. Female drillers get paid just as much as male ones.
While we’re on the subject of supply and demand, let’s look at the points you raise about career choices and how they are valued. You write:-
“•Women tend to do many lower-paid jobs because they echo the feminine private roles; e.g. care and support roles and few men will do them
•These types of jobs are paid less than similar skill jobs usually done by men; e.g. child care versus car care because feminised skills are undervalued”
I agree, with reservations. Our society should value feminised skills more. BUT.
These jobs are not paid less because “feminised skills are undervalued”. These jobs are paid less because of supply and demand. Child Care: a few weeks in a classroom gives you a Certificate in Child care, which enables you to work in child care. The bulk of the skills required are already possessed by most women (and I take my hat off to their instinctive ability to solve problems which confound me when it comes to caring for children!) But these skills are very common and easily available. Compare this with what you describe as “Car Care”. I presume you mean automotive mechanical trades, which require the completion of a four year apprenticeship including 3 years of part time trade schooling and a full four years on intensive on the job training before you are allowed to work in the industry. If you think these jobs are comparable in importance, I would suggest that the care of children is far more important. If you think they are comparable in terms of the skills, you may be right. They are NOT, however, comparable in terms of the AVAILABILITY of those skills. Very few people can do a couple of weeks training, Apply skills they already have, and fix a care. Most women I know can do exactly that when it comes to child care. This means that Child Care workers are, as the phrase goes, “a dime a dozen” - supply exceeds demand and the price for their services is low.
This is a complex subject, and there is far more to it than you have allowed for in your simplistic analysis. Your use of statistics is clumsy and misleading. Are you really suggesting that employers have identically qualified staff, performing identical roles, with identical responsibilities and working conditions, and then pay the female ones less? I’m telling you that’s not the case. I’ve sat on the employing side of the desk for long enough to know that before you even ask for applicants, you have decided on the appropriate salary range. Variations are commensurate with experience and qualifications - and that’s it. Please get the chip off your shoulder, stop looking at this through the lens of your persecution complex, and consider the whole picture.
Eva, I agree that although many formal battles have been won, we have made little progress in informal cultural ways.
I work in a heavily male dominated branch of a particular profession. Less than 20% are women. The sexism I encounter is daily, subtle, and brutal. There is little doubt in my mind that many of the men (certainly, I’m pleased to say, not all) would prefer the women to stop turning up and leave the work to them. Every time I encourage more young women to do what I do, they all say “oh, not me”, as they still do not envisage this to be a job for them.
There is a long, long way to go before the general attitudes of the men and many women really change to allow true equality of opportunity. Of course, part of the change will come from societal support of women in the work they do in the home and in the workforce: proper childcare, home help, ie, that is, practical community acknowledgement of how hard the work of women is in toto and proper supports to allow them to fulfil their home role and to make a more public contribution.
Indeed, we have gone backwards in proper support for women in this regard. Women used to enjoy family/neighbourly support and/or paid assistance of cleaning/help with children/household help. Now it appears to be a weakness of character and/or an indulgence to obtain proper assistance in the home.
In short, we still need profound cultural changes to occur before we see true equality in the workforce.
Women who want to work in traditionally male-dominated fields - such as mining, but not mining administration - must not only contend with the challenges of the job, they must also overcome social attitudes that prescribe a woman’s place is not underground, is not in a job that is manually strenuous or one that is dirty but is in the office, or generally away from the action.
Comparing childcare and automotive mechanical trades - firstly, I went to uni with people studying early childhood education, at least a three year degree. My aunt has completed post-graduate studies in the same - more taxing certainly than three weeks study to get a piece of paper to add to skills that are apparently part of the package of being a woman. Childcare is certainly undervalued in our society perhaps b/c it is perceived as a feminine domain - but rather being just the way things are this ultimately needs a correction, and suggesting that women have childcare skills immediately available to them b/c they are women indicates an ignorance as to what consitutes quality childcare and is also a mass generalisation. I would also suggest that these problem solving skills women inherently have in regards to caring for children are actually learned ‘on the job’ in being the primary parental care-giver.
Secondly, the automotive mechanical trade was not presented as a feasible option to me ten years ago when I was considering my future career post-high school, or to any of the girls in my class. Of the boys though, a number left school in year ten to begin mechanical apprenticeships as did others once they completed the HSC. Like Eva Cox identifies, occupations are gendered and the feminised careers are usually paid less then those perceived as masculine. I don’t see how the correct summation of this trend constitutes a ‘persecution complex’.
And finally, the choice that many woman make to put a career on hold to raise a family is a not really a choice. I’m sure that many women love the time they can spend with their children in this situation, but it is still expected in a way and unusual for a father to put his career on hold for five or ten years to care for his young family. So the ‘choice’ is between a mother looking after her children or a professional doing it, and it is one that is socially loaded.
I recall an incident involving my late sister when she was working for a local but large building firm in the region. She was working in a clerical position with a lot of responsibility and the need for experience etc. She trained a younger man without her experience, and spent some weeks doing this - his position had a more ‘managerial’ title than hers, received a higher income than her plus a car. I bet this sort of thing happens a lot.
Those men who use a woman’s biology to justify their higher incomes are sexist and stereotype all too often. They forget that they can have a family plus the important career etc, and take it for granted - why should women be so far behind in the income stakes? The majority of men who support this injustice probably have more than income as a prejudice against women. As for the work place, some men have a greater capacity for nastiness and sexist behaviour than women do. These men also conveniently omit to think of the mostly female workers who care for their kids in child care, school etc. The problem is, that for too long, men have made the decisions re income that have put these women’s roles below theirs! They have a vested interest in keeping it that way? Why is driving a huge vehicle more important or more of a skill than looking after a very ill person, or the skills required for teaching very young children?
CAPTAIN PLANET Your attitudes re what’s more skillful, important, of higher value etc is the problem. Your perception of the most skills etc is sexist, and too many men are still making those assumptions - that’s the issue. How do you relate to women in your life? Just because you say certain occupations are more important, take more skill etc, doesn’t make it so!
I agree that not asking for promotion is a factor, and not asking until one is more well-qualified than one needs to be happens a lot - women tend to be less confident about their skills and more willing to talk them down and have them talked down.
But I think career breaks are the biggest issue for me in my industry. I will go on maternity leave at the end of this year with my first pregnancy and if I want to breastfeed my child - there are no child care or breastfeeding facilities at my work despite a new building, a relatively supportive employer and a very large majority of women employees.
I am facing effectively putting my career on hold for the next several years and the prospect that I will not have the continuous time in the job and the experience to push for promotion. To be honest I feel stuck, but my child is more important than my career. I feel frustrated that male employees, even if they become parents will not face the same sort of detriments to their careers.
LIZ45,
Please don’t misinterpret my attitudes. If you re read my post, with regard to the relative importance and skills required for Child Care and Automotive Maintenance, I said,
“If you think these jobs are comparable in importance, I would suggest that the care of children is far more important. If you think they are comparable in terms of the skills, you may be right.”
How you have managed to extrapolate, from that statement, that I put a higher value on the skills and importance of traditional masculine stereotypical roles, than traditional feminine stereotypical roles?
let me spell it out for you:
What I said, was that TRADITIONAL FEMININE ROLES AND SKILLS are of EQUIVALENT SKILL LEVEL, and MORE IMPORTANCE, THAN TRADITIONAL MASCULINE ROLES AND SKILLS.
Yet somehow you accuse me of devaluing women’s contribution.
What I pointed out - and I stand by it - is that in the modern world, rates of pay are set by supply and demand.
Yes, you can study early childhood studies for three years at university. You would then be massively overqualified for the kind of low paid roles in active caregiving, which were under discussion. The degree will put you in a position to manage a chain of childcare facilities - and earn a LOT more than your average mechanic. Does this mean we are undervaluing the work of men, and overvaluing the work of women? Using the same logic as yours, yes it would.
I don’t think so - It simply comes down to supply and demand. This debate is about equal pay for equal work - not about readjusting the values of society to change pay scales across industries, in defiance of the market, to place an inflated dollar value on the work of one sector of the workforce.
Do male child care workers get paid more than female ones? I doubt it. There is of course an argument to be made that men face incredible discrimination and the automatic hostile assumption of paedophilia if they attempt to enter this career, but that is another debate entirely.
Do Female Mechanics get paid less than male ones? When they have equivalent skills, experience, hours of work, and responsibility? I REALLY doubt it. There is a perfectly legitimate argument that they face discrimination and sexism on the job, which I personally find deplorable and consider that we need to do something about it, but again, that’s another debate entirely. The point is, equal work gets equal pay. Period.
Arguments suggesting that there is a “gender gap” and we have not achieved equal pay for equal work, are false.
What we should be looking at is genuine and ongoing reform to workplace attitudes and cultural values to ensure ALL forms of discrimination, sexism, etc. are eliminated. Has it occurred to you that, just as many women feel unfairly compelled to interrupt their careers to have children, many MEN feel unfairly compelled to continue working full time (and a whole lot more than full time, in a lot of cases), and miss out on a great deal of their children’s early lives? Raising children full time seems like a very fulfilling way to spend your time to me, and were it a financially viable option for our family, I would gladly have sacrificed my career development to participate more.
Remember, you cannot liberate only half of society. If you try to roll out women’s liberation to cover the elimination of gender based expectations and pressures on men, the process will not succeed.
Please do not misinterpret what I’m saying. I value very highly the contributions of “feminised” skill sets to our society and our economy. What I am saying is that there is no conspiracy to pay women less. Equal pay for Equal work exists now. Changing the economic and political system is what it will take to bring about rates of pay based on value sets other than the financial bottom line. Financial remuneration based on holistic values such as inclusiveness and community wellbeing , instead of maximising financial returns to shareholders no matter what the other impacts on the community, would be wonderful. Our present system does not support this. The market decides what a given role is worth at present - not a sinister “boy’s club” trying to keep women in their place.
Correction to second last paragraph - “if you try to roll out women’s liberation WITHOUT EXTENDING THE PROCESS to cover the elimination of gender based expectations and pressures on men, the process will not succeed.”
Sorry
Have a nice day everyone.
Captain Planet. PS. “These jobs are paid less because of supply and demand. Child Care: a few weeks in a classroom gives you a Certificate in Child care ….” “This means that Child Care workers are, as the phrase goes, “a dime a dozen” - supply exceeds demand and the price for their services is low.” WOW! I just read your comment again. You are a patronising person aren’t you? Child care workers are not a dime a dozen as you state, if it’s so in some areas, it’s because the previous Howard govt negated their responsiblities re the huge growth in demand in recent years. State govts have also been negligent. I listen to talkback on ABC each day, and whenever this topic comes up, only the dumb would not get it; that there’s not enough child care places available. Did you check from TAFE just what a Child Care Certificate entails? It’s a lot more than a “a few weeks in a classroom”Did you know that there are also University Courses(child care)with a ‘certificate’ at the end? These are the qualifications required for some people working in child care. If these people were paid a decent income, and it was run like other educational facilities, all those who are highly qualified would have a job; in fact, places like ABC Learning would only employ the absolute minimum of highly qualified people, so they could make bigger profits; they also employed lots of casuals for the same reason - different(less) rates of pay etc. This owner got most of his profits via govt subsidies - he only had to take some federal pollies for a drive in his Ferrari, and whacko!??
It’s the ignorance coupled with paternalism and patronizing attitudes such as yours, that cause women’s anger. You may be on the employers side of the desk these days, but it’s obvious that you don’t believe in self education, otherwise you wouldn’t make such ignorant and incorrect statements. Even your praise is grudgingly given - natural talent doesn’t take much brains to learn skills - be ‘just a mum’ and that’s all that is required - it’s obvious you don’t have too high an opinion of those skills either!
SKY, all the best to you and your new baby - you’re going to love it, and you’ll do a great job, I’m sure. It will be ‘love at first sight’ I know! I hope it overwhelms you with love and joy, as it did me. If I had my way, every organization that employed a certain number of workers would have to provide rooms for mothers to breast feed their babies; they’d also have to provide child care on the job - other countries do it. If we’re fair dinkum about the importance of raising babies, the importance of breast feeding and bonding with our babies, we should include this as a natural progression of that care.
I’m a grandmother now, and I don’t mind some of my taxes(via a pension) going to paid maternity leave, and for the federal govt to put more money into child care - govt child care centres run by and for those in the local community - they’re the best.
A good book to read that explains the many areas that women’s rights etc have been pushed back, is Ann Summers book, ‘The End of Equality’ - the Howard govt turned the clock backwards - almost 12 yrs of it has helped produce the present worsening inequality.
CAPTAIN PLANET - And I still maintain, that the NAME of the position is frequently changed in order to pay women less. The sexist attitudes towards women and paid work has a lot of history behind it, and most is the ingrained sexist and CONVENIENT attitude in relation to higher profits; to keep women at a lesser financial cost than men. It’s only been through hard work, commitment, persistence and unstoppability of women like Eva Cox and others, that bit by bit, men have been forced to change their opinions, and employers to let the moths out of the wallets? In my lifetime the onus was on the male being the bread winner; girls didn’t ‘need’ to be educated to the same leve, just work (at usually menial or secretarial occupations)until they got married was the view.
The same or similar attitudes prevailed in relation to aboriginal workers - the history of this shameful situation is also historically based - in almost all states, aboriginal people of only decades ago still haven’t received their wages. Prior to the 2007 federal election, Gerry Harvey advocated half the legal wages for ‘overseas workers’ - a throwback to the attitudes re ‘coloured people’ being of less value etc. A concerted campaign by the ACTU (including me)gave him the message - I hope!Those type of employers are still around, and have a lot, too much power. Some of the stories I head via Howard’s Worst Choices were just horrific, particularly the young, particularly young women.
There is a “conspiracy to pay women less” and it’s born out of the ‘conspiracy’ to pay as many people as possible - less - it’s been easier in the past to act unjustly to women, and it’s like pulling teeth to change it! You’d have to have your head in some other planet’s cloud not to realize that fact. What about all the discussions re basic pay rates; the outrage via CEO’s when it’s suggested they help the company out by paying themselves less; the constant whining of the banks, employers spokepeople etc. It’s a daily litany of aspirations via employers, the wealthy etc vs the workers. If this wasn’t so, there’d be no reason for people to join a Union. You need to get out more mate! If there was real equality, there’d be no need for ‘feminists’ - they’re not born, they’re man made! There’s lots of books around about gender inequality in the workforce, divorce settlements, general community, the courts etc. Go and read some! It’s all relevant to women’s incomes.
Corporate media via their so-called current affairs programs do a very ‘good job’ on demeaning the role of women, both in and out of the workforce. When you demean people as mothers, or victims of crimes etc, it makes it easier for employers to take advantage of this by lessening or keeping their incomes low - it’s a political as well as a gender operation. Intimidation and belittling people works, otherwise it wouldn’t still be used! Greed drives most of it, when this is combined with sexism or blatant misogynist attitudes, it keeps attitudes and incomes low! In the past, I’ve met hundreds of women who were unnecessarily injured at work, and ignoring these facts is fairytale stuff! The reality is often horrible - it’s deliberate, shared by the insurers and their medical ‘experts’ the judiciary also, and ‘saves’ employers money! The asbestos disgrace is the worst end of this spectrum. It’s all involved but simple - PROFITS!
Women get paid less for the same jobs, sometimes despite better qualifications and experience, often because they don’t ask for more
Should women ask for more, or should men preempt women who don’t ask for more?
Women are less likely to apply for higher-paid positions but tend to more qualified when they do
Should women apply for higher paid positions more often, or should men offer these more qualified women the position before they apply for it?
Women tend to do many lower-paid jobs because they echo the feminine private roles; e.g. care and support roles and few men will do them
Are you suggesting that men are forcing women to do these jobs, or that women shouldn’t want to do these jobs? Also I think you’ll find that there is evidence that women tend to be happier in their jobs than men.
These types of jobs are paid less than similar skill jobs usually done by men; e.g. child care versus car care because feminised skills are undervalued
I’m pretty sure that auto mechanics don’t get paid much if any more per hour than child care workers. Consider the extra-curricular training and experience required for both jobs. Is this fair?
Women are more often in publicly funded jobs in NGOs, etc, which pay minimum wage rates and awards. Harder to fix assumptions include deeply held views about what is highly valued in the workplaces and out of them
Jobs in the public sector tend to be on fixed “levels” or pay scales. Perhaps women prefer their pay to be fixed than to negotiate? You alluded to this in your first couple of points.
Full-time work hours are overly long and not getting any shorter and people ignore the higher productivity of most part-timers
And part-timers get paid more per hour accordingly.
Women still do most of the unpaid care/domestic work, so cut back paid-work hours to take this on
Assuming you’re referring to the “wife” staying home to look after the kids while the “husband” goes off to work, surely this is a result of discussion and consultation between said husband and wife, and a mutual decision that this outcome is better for their circumstances.
Women still have to conform to different criteria of male-defined workplace behaviours for women to be acceptable; i.e. need to be nicer not tough, not aggressive
Rubbish.
Workplaces cultures still value limited male-defined skills and credentials excluding “soft skills” as natural attributes that do not need to be paid for
I think you’re suggesting that the skills and credentials required to do any particular job are defined by men at the exclusion of women, and that women don’t possess these skills but instead possess “soft skills”, which don’t necessarily qualify them for said job? Should men then hire women based on their “soft skills” or should women acquire actual skills and qualifications?
In summary I believe that most or all the arguments you have proposed are demeaning to women by implying that women should be treated as special cases in the work place. Equal opportunity does not imply equal work or equal reward.
That said, I’m not saying that there aren’t instances where women are not given equal opportunity in the workplace (or elsewhere for that matter). Perhaps in a future article you could address this instead.
“Assuming you’re referring to the “wife” staying home to look after the kids while the “husband” goes off to work, surely this is a result of discussion and consultation between said husband and wife, and a mutual decision that this outcome is better for their circumstances.”
In response to this rebuttal by Warren G to Eva Cox’s claim that “women still do most of the unpaid care/domestic work, so cut back paid-work hours to take this on” - there is plenty of evidence to suggest that when living together and both working women do more unpaid work at home than men.
“Between 1992 and 2006, women’s workforce participation increased from 48 to 55 per cent. Women now represent 45.6 per cent of all employed people. At the same time, women continue to provide the largest amount of informal care and household work. On average, women spend over 33 hours a week on household work and make up 71 per cent of primary carers of people who are frail, aged or have disabilities.” (http://www.facsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/corp/BudgetPAES/budget09_10/women/Documents/p4.htm)
The 2006 census showed that “the average Australian woman 15 years and older spent a median of five to 14 hours every week cleaning up around the house compared to the average man who put in less than five hours in domestic chores.” (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21977034-662,00.html)
Also “one in 10 Australians provides unpaid care and nearly two-thirds of the carers were women.” (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/good-man-hard-to-find/2007/06/27/1182623991826.html?page=2)
A study of British households found that “after becoming a couple, women’s housework time shot up to 15 hours a week while the average male contribution dropped to five hours, even when both spouses work.” (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/opinion/new-evidence — women-are-overworked-at-home/2007/05/31/1180205424584.html)
Liz.
Please.
Read what I’ve written with a balanced viewpoint before replying. We are actually in agreement on most things.
I do NOT demean women or their capabilities. I have the highest respect for the difficult and demanding job of motherhood. My praise is NOT grudgingly given. Read it again. I have repeatedly outlined my utmost regard for many of the nurturing characteristics at which women excell. Do not try to paint me as something which I am not.
The absence of childcare places is not due to a scarcity of childcare workers. It is due to a scarcity of child care providers.
Your assertion that childcare workers all go to university is wrong. Your contention that childcare providers could somehow make more money by employing less, more highly qualified people is wrong. You need a minimum number of people per child to ensure quality care. If these people were paid more then the cost of childcare would go up. This would have adverse effects on the opportunities for working mothers.
You wrote, “every organization that employed a certain number of workers would have to provide rooms for mothers to breast feed their babies; they’d also have to provide child care on the job”. This is a guaranteed way to ensure employers will avoid hiring women, so they can avoid the additional costs that come with subsidising child care. Be careful what you wish for.
Government subsidised childcare, on the other hand, is an admirable outcome and one I fully support. You yourself have pointed out the pitfalls that such an approach can entail, with regards ABC learning. We need to pursue more effective means of government provision of childcare.
At the same time, as someone engaged (as much as I can be whilst working more than full time out of economic necessity) in the raising of a newborn at the moment, I know full well that my wife would not even consider re entering the workforce and giving the primary care of her child over to strangers, if she could conceivably avoid it. Fortunately we can afford for her to devote her time to child raising which is WHAT SHE WANTS. (Hence my long hours. Men are victims of these circumstances too, you know.) A far more effective means of easing the economic burden on families with children would be to allow income sharing between a married couple. In this manner I could work less hours, spend more time with my family, even allowing my wife to re enter the workforce. Subsidised child care is not the be - all and end - all. It is part of the picture but not the holy grail.
You wrote, “Did you know that there are also University Courses(child care)with a ‘certificate’ at the end? These are the qualifications required for some people working in child care.”
Certificate II in child care is the basic qualification required for most child care workers, and it requires approximately 40 contact hours to complete.
Did you read my point about university degrees for childcare workers?
I’ll post it again:-
“Yes, you can study early childhood studies for three years at university. You would then be massively overqualified for the kind of low paid roles in active caregiving, which were under discussion. The degree will put you in a position to manage a chain of childcare facilities - and earn a LOT more than your average mechanic. Does this mean we are undervaluing the work of men, and overvaluing the work of women? Using the same logic as yours, yes it would.”
You do NOT require a degree in childcare or a university “certficate” to work in a childcare centre. You require Certificate II. 40 hours training is not comparable to the 30 + modules and four years of on the job training required to be a qualified Light Vehicle Mechanic. I don’t know why you are still pushing this comparison.
Again, this does NOT MEAN I do not value the skills, committment and contribution of child care workers, or women in general. Stop trying to act as though that is the case. Again I’ll repeat:
“If you think these jobs are comparable in importance, I would suggest that the care of children is far more important. If you think they are comparable in terms of the skills, you may be right.”
“I value very highly the contributions of “feminised” skill sets to our society and our economy.”
I have been certain to outline my respect and appreciation for the caregiving skills of childcare workers. Do not try to paint me as a sexist, patronising, paternalistic bigot. I am none of these things. Nor are you a rabid misanthropist - and I wouldn’t call you one.
Childcare workers are low paid because there are many people available to fill the positions. The phrase “a dime a dozen” was intended to portray the economic reality of the dollar value vs. availability. In retrospect it is a poorly chosen phrase which could be misconstrued as flippant disregard for the intrinsic value of the position. Please accept my sincere apologies. The fact is, if there were a shortage of childcare workers, they would be sought after by childcare providers and their wages would be higher. To envisage some kind of Industry - wide conspiracy to continue to pay low wages out of gender based hatred, even when there is a shortage of workers in the field, is to stretch credulity and to ignore the evidence of other industries with worker shortages in the modern economy. Where supply exceeds demand, the price goes down. Where demand exceeds supply, the price goes up. I’m not necessarily saying that the reduction of all human interaction and provision of services to the financial bottom line is a good thing: Just that it is the true mechanism behind low wages for many of the “traditional” female job roles. It is NOT the fault of bastard men who hate women.
Your comments about the “conspiracy to pay women less” as part of the greater conspiracy to pay everyone less…. Like I said, we are largely in agreement. I do not like the current capitalist system. I agree wholeheartedly with your concerns about the exploitation of aboriginal workers. I also know all about Unionism, despite your allegation that I “should get out more”. (Please keep this civil.) I am a Union Member of 16 years standing and a former Union Representative. I have taken management to task over exploitation of workers and organised industrial action. I believe in the value of the Union movement and I feel the political and economic systems in the Capitalist world need to change, to begin to ensure a greater amount of equality for all. These changes need to happen on a very large political and economic front.
Your insistence that it is an evil consortium of men who are conspiring to keep women in their place, is keeping you from actively engaging to make a difference. United we stand, divided we fall, Liz. As long as you insist on driving a non - existent wedge between male and female and claiming it is all our fault, how can you unite with us to improve things?
Equal Pay for Equal work is a fact in this country. There is no brotherhood of misogynists changing role descriptions and forcing women into poverty out of hate.
Not quite true about the equal pay for equal work - an article in Campus Review a couple of months ago compared the data on male and female graduates a year, five years and ten years after they graduate and the evidence they found was even after taking into account course/ career preferences, taking time out for children etc. that their incomes not only stagnated but in some cases went backwards by the ten year mark.
On a more personal note one of my relations is a project manager / engineer and after having a baby she made an arrangement with her employer that when she returned from maternity leave that she will work a four day week. This was all good in theory until it turned out that she was still expected to do the same amount of work as before in 30 hours - and if the work wasn’t done during your 30 hours - do it at home unpaid. She is now planning to leave her industry in favor of a career in academia.
I think the reality is that women who have careers are expected to be like the men - but I am with you Captain Planet in that this is an unfair expectation on both sexes. Personally I want my husband to be the stay at home dad if we decide to have kids and I dont see why society should pillory both of us for that choice of swapping roles.
As a result of this it means that the issue of my pay is important because that is what we will have to live off and reading that article in Campus Review made me very upset since I am retraining to go into a more male dominated profession in the hope of earning more money (and enjoying the challenging nature of the work too
I hope this remains a hot topic because because I think that the workplace, employers and politicians should be dragged out of this 1950s la la land fantasy that men will work women will stay at home or at least work fewer hours in crappy jobs and the housework and child rearing will magically get done (by the women). Equality, real equality - as in the right for men and women to equally redefine there roles in society is in all of our interests.